Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Finally Israeli Dimona nuclear site is revealed in these archives of State Dept & AEC and involvement of pro-Israeli officers at CIA and AEC. Bibi will never admit Israel's +300 WMD in a desert site - called *textile factory* - to mislead US Govt.

The way this deal is portrayed in the media and by "experts" is disgraceful. Now, part of this deal must contain separate issues of Iran's behavior. That seems to be a desperate attempt to discredit any notion of success by the Administration. Little to nothing is ever said about the complicated history with Iran. (Such as the U.S. supporting Iraq in a war which killed 1 million people. An attempt by anyone to uncover Iranian motives through history is dangerous. It's almost treason.)
As bad is how little discussion there is on China and Russia sitting at the table and supporting the transparency of the total agreement. Just today, Russia said the statement released describing the deal is reliable and accurate.
Little is said about the construct of the deal does not rely on trusting Iran. The conditions put forth by the P5 plus 1 don't require them to trust Iran.
With Congress and Obama's political enemies reaching the point of assuring this deal has no chance, can someone stand up and talk about the consequences of this? It's beginning to appear that many want failure for reasons other than a lousy deal.
For example, the media quickly pointed out how Saudi Arabia was opposed to the agreement and may be forced into a nuclear arms race. Last week, the Saudi's complimented the progress thus far but one to go pretty deep to find that comment.
It's pretty clear you can't be objective and I'm sure you have your reasons. I can only hope we get experts to give us an objective discussion without fear of the inevitable comparisons to 1938.

If Congress doesn't approve the treaty and the other countries do it will only make the US appear weak and indecisive. Congress needs to get it's priorities straight. If Iran fails to follow the directives than those failures can be addressed at that time but to sit here and critique what was accomplished after the fact...well we all know a Monday morning quarterback.

I honestly think that those behind the letter to Iran should have treason charges brought against them.

I am not a prophet. But, I shall not be surprised if Haas is proved wrong in June/July.....What people like him do not understand is that the dispute is not about Iran's nuclear programme. As the CIA assessed Iran had stopped pursuing a bomb-making capacity years ago. The issue was invented by pro-Israeli groups in US to prevent any reconciliation between Iran and US . Reflection will show that there is no clash of fundamental interests between the two and they can come together if they can forget and forgive what happened in the past. The tension between the two started not with the overthrow of the Shah, but with Carter's flawed decision to give asylum to the Shah leading to the take over of the Embassy.

1. Russia is to be trusted? Does no one see a problem here?
The deal put forward by the US and its partners in the negotiations ignores a very basic fact. There is no possible reason to trust Russia. The same Russia which has supported Iran’s nuclear ambitions and retained it as one of its largest clients for arms is also the same Russia led by the same leader who has shown in Ukraine that he cannot be trusted.

This basic fact seems to be eluding every single commentator.

That the US administration is happy to sit and negotiate a deal that is dependent on Russian cooperation and in which it has conflicting interests is puzzling at best and ignorant at worst.

Picture just one of many possible outcomes in which Russia in the next 10 years of the agreement decides that it wants to use the political leverage provided by this deal for its own interests, let’s say angling for a bigger chunk of Eastern Europe and takes as it sees fit?

In the same way that Obama has ignored his own red line in Syria and went on to allow Iran to do as they see fit in Iraq and Syria in order to get them to the negotiating table - at the expense of long-term allies in the region - what odds on him selling out Ukraine completely and eventually the Baltics?

2. The rationale being put forward that a deal is better than another war in the region is completely false.
The region is at WAR.
Israel and Hamas have taken a breather in their ongoing War, Iran’s Lebanese wing, Hezbollah is sitting on Israel’s northern border of Lebanon and now increasingly so on the Syrian Border, threatening another conflict.
Syria is at still in the midst of a civil WAR involving so many different players that it is tough to take any side in a conflict which has seen millions displaced and hundreds of thousands killed.
ISIS in Iraq and Syria presents another WAR while in Yemen, Iran’s proxies have overrun a US backed regime and drawn Saudi Arabia into war.
And so in the midst of it all we have a deal that Obama claims is the best outcome possible and that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. What a brazen lie. Iran has gained the approval to develop a nuclear weapon in time, leaving non-proliferation as a meaningless concept and bringing the region to the cusp of a nuclear arms race.

It's true that "the text leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it resolves". The "framework" on which Iran and the P5+1 were agreed, was not yet a complete deal. Difficult weeks of intensive haggling lie ahead and Richard Haass sees little reason to be euphoric. He, like his peers in Congress, together with Benjamin Netanyahu demand "a meaningful ceiling on Iran’s nuclear program" - preferably a rolling back of it. They doubt if Iran would change its attitude towards its nuclear ambition in the long run.
But Haass at least has to admit that diplomacy has delivered a result. The international community believes, it's more desirable to opt for an agreement, than for a bad choice between military action and a sanctions regime, that might not produce the anticipated outcome. In the past Iran had defied sanctions by stepping up its nuclear activities. With a carrot and stick strategy the P5+1 hope to constrain Iran's nuclear programme for some 10 to 15 years. Some new and important provisions would allow international inspectors greater oversight of whether Iran has cheated or not. A nuclear deal would reduce a key source of friction between Iran and the West, by bringing Tehran in from the cold.
Unfortunately opinion has been bitterly divided on the framework deal. Opponents in Congress and their allies Israel and Saudi Arabia question the merits of even seeking a deal with Iran. I'ts not difficult to discern their intent - regime change in Tehran. The loudest condemnation came from Netanyahu, who insisted the deal wouldn't stop but help Iran build a nuclear bomb. Hardliners in Tehran criticised it by claiming Iran surrendered too much in exchange for too little.
Both Haass and Netanyahu criticise the deal being "only about Iran’s nuclear activities". While Haass would like the world powers to do something "about Iran’s missile programs or support for terrorists and proxies, much less about what it is doing in Syria or Iraq or Yemen or anywhere else in the turbulent Middle East, or about human rights at home," Netanyahu insists that the final agreement should include Iran's recognition of Israel. It's ridiculous, why can't he approach Iran himself? As Iran is trying to exert influence in the region ranging from Damascus and Baghdad to Beirut and Sanaa, tensions will persist between Tehran and Washington and its Middle East allies, which would have to be dealt with separately.
As tough as the negotiations have been to reach an agreement, it will even be harder to draft a final deal by the end of June. But, if negotiators succeed, it will be a triumph for diplomacy, which will make the world a much safer place.

When it comes to Iran, what do its enemies really want? To decide if this framework agreement is a good deal, you first have to understand the desired future condition. That is, what does each player want the region to be like in 10 years.
For Obama, I expect he wants peace and thinks it is achievable. Poor Obama, knowing little about foreign affairs or macro economics, he allowed Bush appointees to stay on and got sideswiped by their hostile policies. He is finally getting out from the mistake of looking forward, not backward. He has finally moved out from that shadow, in this case by letting the EU negotiators take the lead.
For Haass and Netanyahu, Iran civil war is the best outcome. A slow grinding of potential foes in the area into dust is the only way they can realize their goal of an Israel that includes the occupied territories.
For Sunnis, led by Saudi Arabia, the only outcome that will satisfy them is the elimination of the Shiia sect. Sad but true.
Me, I am most heartened by the EU approach and fear most any chance that the GOP in Congress will force its views on this deal and undermine the good work done by the EU and the UN.

What Haass says is correct. But, this is the start of a dialog, and jaw jaw is better than war war. Contact will humanize Iranians, which is what the Israelis fear most since it will undercut their stark narratives. Israel has the biggest incentive to torpedo this opening, since a good relationship between the West and Iran reduces Israel's ability to run roughshod and coverup the issue of Palestinian rights...ultimately the most important issue for Israel. It is time for the US to expect more from Israel, our special friend...and to expose all the gaps between our countries, and discuss and debate them.

"The agreement is only about Iran’s nuclear activities. It says nothing about Iran’s missile programs or support for terrorists and proxies, much less about what it is doing in Syria or Iraq or Yemen or anywhere else in the turbulent Middle East"

Priceless quote... saving this one for the museum of shameless hypocrisy.

If you accept the standard premises behind US foreign policy, Iran presents a challenge. Leave sanctions on, and it could become a link in a chain of alternative power structures. Take sanctions off, and you may end up feeding a nation which lags 60 years behind the rest of the world in their ability to forget the nasty things the US has done.

The best thing is a long, stutter-stepping, half-way process (a-la-Europe), to guide whatever new things grow into as confused a shape as possible.

First, Richard is apparently oblivious of Kissinger’s raison d’etre to finally open Mao’s China to rest of the world. Since becoming a WTO member, at US behest, China gained by leaps and bounds the cumulative benefits of globalization.…

Second, it seems, he’s reluctant (Brooklyn born kid) to go against the bellicose rhetoric's of Bibi. Judaism is after all well preserved in old Persia. My guess is US Congress will not be able (ie. +60 votes) to deny Obama and his veto against any effort to undermine the Framework Agreement - going forward – to a de jure act under UNSC. It’s in the national interest of Iran, in particular, to ensure it is codified under international law.

Third, this guy sort of helped GWB with invasion and occupation of Iraq – even if he wrote later about war of choice v. necessity. Iran is a different cattle of fish and was never colonized even by the Roman Empire!

Fourth, regional conflicts and related issues don’t fall under NPT negotiations; and, he knows it intellectually. Yet he wants to pile up on Iran – like they did on Nixon for opening up China.

Finally, by end of year, there will most likely be a different – more positive - set of policy alternatives emanating from this nuclear non-proliferation deal by P5+1 and Iran.

Iran has finally realised that in the 21st Century economic power and influence trumps military power. There is absolutely no benefit to have an own nuclear arsenal, especially if one of their allies, Russia, has the largest or second largest nuclear arsenal in the World.

Also sticking to the deal will expose the Hardliners in Israel and in the USA, which will further promote the positive standing of Iran in the World. Iran has realised, that the best way to fight Israel is not to try to wipe it off the geographic map, but to wipe it off the media map through public relations.

If for some reason the Iranians torpedo or undermine this agreement, they will only shoot themselves in the foot, and they know that by now. I am glad the Hardliners in Iran are on the retreat.

I am not a fan of Iran or Israel, but Iran is definitely playing the much smarter and longer-range game these days.

Once the Middle East runs our of oil or alternative fuels have become more common place the Arab countries will not have a leg to stand on against highly-skilled and highly-educated peoples like the Iranians.

What is the power of the US in this? If the others lift sanctions, are we in a different position than Cuba? Is it possible that Obama must support to avoid the US humiliation of being irrelevant? Is it possible that Russia would stop any real threat of an Israeli military strike by sending its own planes in for protection? Iran wants a weapon to counterbalance the Pakistan bomb when Iran (allied with Russia) have an interest in supporting the Farshi-speaking Tajiks against the Pashtuni when Afghanistan disintegrates.

Why incidentally are the Shiites against American interest? Have any killed Americans since the attack on the Beirut which killed 200 marines and which Reagan responded to by leaving Lebanon? Our problems have almost all been with Sunnis, usually financed by the fundamentalist Sunni regime in Saudi Arabia. On the surface promotion of regime change in Saudi Arabia seems a better policy.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.